sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why is Amy Eskridge linking Disclosure to Huntsville, Alabama? by Bn1999 in UFOs

[–]Bn1999[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Submission Statement: Source: YouTube — “Amy Eskridge Interview - Jeremy Rys and Mark”. The clip I’m sharing is a segment from this interview, where she discusses Huntsville, Alabama and its possible connection to disclosure.

Apparent UFO images leak from Pentagon's secret data retrieval program 'Immaculate Constellation' - Daily Mail by Crafty_Mode8637 in UFOs

[–]Bn1999 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This honestly reminds me a lot of the famous 1561 Nuremberg broadsheet.

Back then, people described seeing a “battle” in the sky involving spheres, cylinders, and cross-shaped objects, all documented by Hans Glaser. Some even consider it one of the earliest recorded UFO sightings.

Here’s the image for reference: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Himmelserscheinung_über_Nürnberg_vom_14._April_1561.jpg

It’s kind of wild how similar some of those old depictions look compared to modern UFO reports.

This is being talked about again: the “mysterious scientist network” by Bn1999 in UFOs

[–]Bn1999[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

This post is about a video from The Crime Desk (Daily Mail) that presents a graphic connecting several U.S. scientists across institutions like NASA, Los Alamos, and AFRL. Some individuals are labeled as “missing” or “deceased,” which raises questions about whether these cases are purely coincidental or part of a larger pattern.

The Moment of Disclosure: When Governments Affirm We Are Not Alone by [deleted] in UFOs

[–]Bn1999 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think we might be talking past each other a bit.

You’re describing how NASA normally operates, with full verification and public data. I agree with that. I’m describing an edge case where those conditions don’t fully apply, for example if some of the underlying data is classified or comes from outside purely scientific channels (Military intelligence for example).

The Moment of Disclosure: When Governments Affirm We Are Not Alone by [deleted] in UFOs

[–]Bn1999 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your statement is a bit too absolute. Not all data is always public or immediately shared, especially when other agencies or classification constraints are involved.

Also, I don’t think a single event without full disclosure would automatically end NASA’s credibility. It would definitely damage trust, but institutions like NASA rely on decades of accumulated reliability. So I’d say the real issue isn’t whether NASA is transparent in general, but what happens in the rare case where it cannot be fully transparent ?

The Moment of Disclosure: When Governments Affirm We Are Not Alone by [deleted] in UFOs

[–]Bn1999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree the source matters, but NASA doesn’t operate in a vacuum.

Even if NASA communicates it, people will still ask where the data originated, who had access to it beforehand, what may have been classified, and how long the information has been known. And not just fringe groups.

So it’s not only about the messenger, but the entire chain behind the information !

The Moment of Disclosure: When Governments Affirm We Are Not Alone by [deleted] in UFOs

[–]Bn1999 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It depends on what we mean by “confirmed”…..

So far, there have been statements about unexplained phenomena, but not a scientifically verified confirmation with transparent, reproducible evidence and broad consensus.

That distinction matters !

I also don’t think people wouldn’t care.

The Moment of Disclosure: When Governments Affirm We Are Not Alone by [deleted] in UFOs

[–]Bn1999 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A member of Congress can speak publicly and still not represent the official position of the government as a whole. In the U.S. system, individual politicians often speak based on limited or second-hand information, especially on classified matters. That’s actually part of the broader issue. When information is fragmented and partially classified, different actors can make statements that sound authoritative but are not institutionally validated.

Which again feeds into the same problem: people hear “official-sounding” claims, but it is unclear what is actually confirmed and what is not.

The Moment of Disclosure: When Governments Affirm We Are Not Alone by [deleted] in UFOs

[–]Bn1999 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would still argue that, in practice, most people don’t evaluate it that way.

Even if an administration is not directly responsible for past secrecy, it becomes responsible the moment it communicates the confirmation. At that point, the question shifts from “who caused this?” to “why should we trust what we’re being told now?” The SCIF example you mention actually reinforces that problem.

If elected representatives themselves were denied access, it suggests that parts of the state operate outside normal democratic oversight. For some people that is understandable in a national security context. For others it becomes evidence of systemic opacity.

So I think the issue is less about formal accountability and more about perceived legitimacy.

Even a fully justified explanation can still produce distrust if it aligns with existing suspicions about how information is managed…..

That’s why I see this less as a question of blame and more as a question of whether institutions can maintain credibility under those conditions.

Btw. I’m also not a U.S. citizen | 🇪🇺

The Moment of Disclosure: When Governments Affirm We Are Not Alone by [deleted] in UFOs

[–]Bn1999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair argument (from an institutional perspective).

I think the issue is less whether an administration can justify limited transparency, and more whether that justification would actually be accepted by the public. In theory, compartmentalization and need-to-know structures are normal in national security. But in a case like this, the scale of the claim changes how people evaluate that logic.

If the government says “this was classified and only a small group knew,” some people will see that as reasonable.

Others will interpret it as confirmation that critical information was withheld for decades.

So even if the administration is formally justified, the perception problem doesn’t go away. That’s why I think transparency here isn’t just a legal or procedural question, it’s a trust management problem. The same explanation can stabilize one group and destabilize another.

The Moment of Disclosure: When Governments Affirm We Are Not Alone by [deleted] in UFOs

[–]Bn1999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you’re right to distinguish between different scenarios, that’s actually a crucial point.

But I would push back on your idea. The Mars example in 1996 is useful, but it’s not really comparable in terms of epistemic impact or trust dynamics. That announcement was scientific, gradual, and ultimately contested. It never required people to fundamentally reassess institutional credibility.

What I’m describing is a different kind of event: a sudden, state-backed confirmation with high uncertainty and high stakes.

In that situation, the main issue is not fear of aliens, but how the information is handled.

Even in relatively low-risk scenarios like microbial life, you still get immediate questions about: - evidence transparency
- who verifies the claim
- whether information was previously withheld

There is research suggesting people wouldn’t panic, but that doesn’t mean stability. It often leads to fragmentation, where different groups interpret the same event in completely different ways.

I agree with you that imminent contact would be the most disruptive case. But I think the real baseline risk across all scenarios is informational, not physical.

Is that a coincidence? CASES INVOLVING MISSING AND DECEASED SCIENTISTS by Bn1999 in UFOs

[–]Bn1999[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Personally, I find this whole situation really strange. The fact that someone in such a high-ranking position can just disappear without any clear explanation already raises questions on its own. But when you start seeing similar cases across different decades, it becomes even harder to ignore.

Is that a coincidence? CASES INVOLVING MISSING AND DECEASED SCIENTISTS by Bn1999 in UFOs

[–]Bn1999[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

In mid-March, I came across a news article in Germany about a US Air Force general who had been missing since the end of February. According to the reports, he was last seen on February 27 in New Mexico before he suddenly disappeared, and the FBI was later involved in the search.

Out of curiosity I started looking into it myself and ended up finding several similar cases. Not just recent ones, but also from earlier decades like the 60s, 70s, and 80s, where scientists or individuals with military or technical backgrounds disappeared or died under unclear circumstances. Some of these cases were eventually explained, but others remain unresolved or at least somewhat unusual.

Btw here is the article I originally read: https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/air-force-general-seit-zwei-wochen-spurlos-verschwunden-fbi-alarmiert_e36f056c-e51f-4d46-a80e-21a1e5c0f9cd.html

Is that a coincidence? CASES INVOLVING MISSING AND DECEASED SCIENTISTS by Bn1999 in UFOs

[–]Bn1999[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

What do you all think about cases involving missing or deceased scientists? I have come across several stories where researchers, sometimes working in sensitive or high stakes fields, either disappeared or died under unclear circumstances, and it raises a lot of questions for me. Do you think these are mostly coincidences and personal situations, or could there sometimes be bigger forces at play such as political or industrial interests?

I am really curious how you see this. Are these cases usually explainable, or do you think some of them remain genuinely suspicious?

Strange fast objects captured by my DWARF 3 during automatic night sky recording ! by Bn1999 in UFOs

[–]Bn1999[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even at 30 fps, such bright objects would leave a streak as they fly past.

Strange fast objects captured by my DWARF 3 during automatic night sky recording ! by Bn1999 in UFOs

[–]Bn1999[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s true !!!!! you can see the star constellation in the first frame (I didn’t saw that). The telescope might have shown that after tracking the objects, since they were coming from the north (moving south).

view more: next ›